Gov’t won’t even give page counts of secret PATRIOT Act documents

At a hearing today, a judge insisted the documents must be described.

OAKLAND, California—Lawsuits challenging government secrecy have fared pretty terribly in the post-9/11 era, with the most recent example being the Supreme Court's ruling last month that a group of journalists and activists have no right to sue over the FISA spying law.

Only a few cases of this sort are left, including two Bay Area lawsuits being pushed forward by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. One is the San Francisco case over NSA wiretapping, which the government is trying to shut down using the "state secrets" privilege. The other is EFF's case demanding to see documents about how the government is interpreting Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act.

It isn't just activists that are concerned, either. In 2009, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) said the government's use of "Section 215 is unfortunately cloaked in secrecy. Some day that cloak will be lifted, and future generations will ask whether our actions today meet the test of a democratic society." In 2011, two US Senators, Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Mark Udall (D-CO), publicly voiced their concerns, too, suggesting the government had a pretty wild interpretation of what it was allowed to do under the PATRIOT Act. "When the American people find out how their government has secretly interpreted the Patriot Act, they will be stunned and they will be angry,” Wyden toldThe New York Times.

It isn't known what kind of investigation those records would reveal, but there is some speculation that the Section 215 records are related to cell phone geolocation data. EFF's lawyer in charge of the case says if that is true, such data is probably being gathered on a "massive" scale.

Later that year, EFF filed a lawsuit [Complaint, PDF] insisting that some of those documents should be publicly disclosed. The government had stonewalled EFF's Freedom of Information Act request, so now the group wanted a federal judge to enforce its request.

Department of Justice lawyers said the FOIA couldn't be complied with, because it would reveal classified information about a "sensitive collection program."

The “list itself is classified”

In January, the government filed a declaration [PDF] signed by Mark Bradley, the FOIA director of DOJ's National Security Division, explaining what records would be responsive to EFF's request. The descriptions of the documents are extremely basic. For instance, Bradley explains that there are 200 relevant documents dated from May 2006 to Sept. 2011 that were provided to a key House intelligence committee, and that they total 799 pages. It goes on in that fashion.

At today's hearing in Oakland federal court, US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers suggested that the document wasn't going to be sufficient.

"Why can't I have a basic categorization of what the documents are?" asked Gonzalez Rogers.

"Are you suggesting the number of pages of each document is classified?" asked the judge. "What's been provided is: '200 documents consisting of 799 pages.' That doesn't tell me anything. It doesn't tell the public anything. It was never explained to me how something as basic as a list with page numbers could, in any way, shape, or form, be contrary to the interests of the government."

"Mr. Bradley has sworn, under penalty of perjury, that to say more would tend to reveal classified information," said Bressler. "A wealth of information is available for in camera review." Information like page numbers and timing of documents "may be put together by targets of investigation, or adversaries of the United States," he said.

"What the defendant [DOJ] is doing isn't a national security concern," said Mark Rumold, the EFF lawyer arguing to release the documents. "It's a litigation tactic, used since the beginning of FOIA, to make it impossible for FOIA to challenge the government. The defendant can't even describe why they can't describe the records in more detail."

It's an extremely incremental step, but Gonzalez Rogers seemed to side with EFF today. She said she was inclined to issue an order that would ask for more detail about the documents.

"What I have here is, 'We sent them 200 documents.' That's not good enough," she said.

79 Reader Comments

Democracy works best on a small level. Check out Switzerland, it more or less works there. I guess the whole construct of the US is slightly messed up, mostly because you have a few backwards states which block sensible decisions on the national level. But since you can't really secede I guess you're just fucked.

We hold the power of the vote, and there are no excuses to let this sort of cloak and dagger rubbish run unchecked.

The power of the vote is meaningless without meaningful choices to vote for.

That's a cop-out. If you don't like any of the choices, step up and add a new one to the list.

Well, you did say you're from Australia.

In America, it isn't so easy to "add a new one to the list." We have only two major political parties, contrast that with most of the Westernized world that has many more. Without the financial and manpower backing of one of those two parties, it is highly improbable to get on a national ballot -- let alone win an election. Of the 535 elected Congressional members allowed to vote on bills (such as the Patriot Act), only two members are officially not affiliated with either major party -- but they caucus with one of the major parties anyway.

Australians can't stand all high and mighty when it comes to (federal) elections... I assume everyone knows that voting is compulsory in Australian government elections, right? We also have the preferential vote: we have to list the candidates in the order we'd like them elected. If our first choice doesn't get up, our vote spills to the next choice, and so on, until someone has a majority (50%+1). We have to fill in a choice for all candidates in the federal elections and similarly to America, our politics is dominated by a primarily left-wing party and a primarily right-wing party. Whether or not the major left-wing or major right-wing party candidate wins comes down to whom you choose to be 4th or 5th, or 12th or 13th, not so much whom you choose (from the major parties) to be 1st or 2nd. It's very difficult for any other candidate to break this duopoly and it's why you'll hear polls refer to the 'two-party preferred' voting intention - they essentially discount any other candidate! Some state elections are a bit better - they give you the option of listing however many (or few) candidates you want and nobody else gets a look-in.

Back on-topic... How on earth does hiding the number of pages in a particular document improve the security of the country?

Back on-topic... How on earth does hiding the number of pages in a particular document improve the security of the country?

Now, THIS is an interesting question.

The answer is actually that it can, and the reason is that the volume of a document can reveal how much (or little) is in the document. If, for instance, you ask for documents regarding, say, the wiretapping of people from Libya, then the length of the document could reveal how much wiretapping/attention to said wiretapping has been going on. If the document for people from Iran is significantly different in length to, say, people from Pakistan, that would potentially give away information.

Not that in this instance it is being done for anything other than CYA, but the volume of information can indeed give away information about the contents of said information.

Back on-topic... How on earth does hiding the number of pages in a particular document improve the security of the country?

Now, THIS is an interesting question.

The answer is actually that it can, and the reason is that the volume of a document can reveal how much (or little) is in the document. If, for instance, you ask for documents regarding, say, the wiretapping of people from Libya, then the length of the document could reveal how much wiretapping/attention to said wiretapping has been going on. If the document for people from Iran is significantly different in length to, say, people from Pakistan, that would potentially give away information.

Not that in this instance it is being done for anything other than CYA, but the volume of information can indeed give away information about the contents of said information.

Our children, and our children's children, are going to have a good amount of justification in blaming us for the many ills that will no doubt eventually surface from this period. We hold the power of the vote, and there are no excuses to let this sort of cloak and dagger rubbish run unchecked.

Voting isn't even all that essential to the process nor is it our greatest power. Our greatest power as the people is the jury and our ability to nullify. When you serve as a juror it isn't just your responsibility to decide whether the defendant is guilty or innocent, you also have the right to not agree with the law they violated. Nullification is our power to strike down laws in the courts, even if the state prosecution has you believing (and regardless if they are right or wrong) a defendant is guilty you can still move to nullify because you don't agree with the law he's being charged with breaking.

You have to see a courtroom to receive a jury trial, and you have to receive a jury trial for a jury to nullify. The NDAA2012 ensures that you won't see a trial. In all likelihood, you won't even be charged, just disappear.

Even better? You can't oppose this, because you have no standing to challenge it until you can prove it's been used on you. If it's been used on you, you won't be provided any opportunity TO challenge it. It's similar to the situation with the guaranteed-corrupt voting in Texas: electronic voting machines that the government REFUSES to get the paper verification systems for, and the courts tossed out the case because the ones demanding the verification systems had no standing. In order to prove standing, they'd have to show that a vote was tampered with (in an actual election, not as one of the countless demonstrations over the years). It ensures that you'll never have standing to challenge it, and the broken system can be used indefinitely and indiscriminately.

Dopenstein wrote:

Democracy works best on a small level. Check out Switzerland, it more or less works there. I guess the whole construct of the US is slightly messed up, mostly because you have a few backwards states which block sensible decisions on the national level. But since you can't really secede I guess you're just fucked.

They also have direct voting, which in some ways is pretty awesome (it helps keep horrific things like the PATRIOT ACT, FISA, and DMCA away), but can also be dangerous without the correct checks and balances ("tyranny of the majority").

Voo42 wrote:

Titanium Dragon wrote:

(Airbus got caught bribing the Saudis for instance, and I have zero sympathy for that coming out into the open).

Whether they have used it for industrial espionage is questionable, in the sense of trying to steal industrial secrets.

Back on-topic... How on earth does hiding the number of pages in a particular document improve the security of the country?

Now, THIS is an interesting question.

The answer is actually that it can, and the reason is that the volume of a document can reveal how much (or little) is in the document. If, for instance, you ask for documents regarding, say, the wiretapping of people from Libya, then the length of the document could reveal how much wiretapping/attention to said wiretapping has been going on. If the document for people from Iran is significantly different in length to, say, people from Pakistan, that would potentially give away information.

Not that in this instance it is being done for anything other than CYA, but the volume of information can indeed give away information about the contents of said information.

Irrelevant. The EFF is not asking for wiretapping protocols, but for the applied standards and regulations behind the Patriot act. And only for those pertaining to US citiziens (where there is a legal standing). HUGE, HUGE difference.

There are a helluva lot of reasons starting a new political party here is ridiculously difficult. Try researching the pre-requisites for starting a new party (which is what you'd need to put in a new candidate - party lines are too deeply entrenched for a Democrat or Republican to make a real difference). Then notice that you would have to do that in several states, which requires a large, coordinated effort of like-minded people in enough states to get a majority of the electoral vote (not majority vote, but that's another issue). Did I mention all 50 states have different requirements for what it takes to get on the ballot?

That's leaving aside issues at the county level (not 'country', but 'county' - my ex was from Oz and was absolutely dumbfounded by how we divide up our country).

It's pretty difficult in Australia too. It took 4 years for the australian pirate party to go from trying to create a new party to actually becoming one.

But I still think it's still a cop-out. If you really care about it you will make the effort. If you can't be bothered then say you can't be bothered instead of complaining there are no good choices.

Irrelevant. The EFF is not asking for wiretapping protocols, but for the applied standards and regulations behind the Patriot act. And only for those pertaining to US citiziens (where there is a legal standing). HUGE, HUGE difference.

Er, I acknowledged that in this case, it is clearly CYA, but I was pointing out that yes, the length of documents can, in principle, give information away.

Of course, to be fair it could give away information in this case - as to whether the guidelines are long or short. If the document is one page long, that would be pretty telling, as would it being a hundred pages long.

However, I cannot possibly see how that would affect national security. Their personal JOB security perhaps...

I've often wondered why a system using "sworn to secrecy judges" (oaths, etc.) can't be created to allow the independent vetting of any documents the Gov. declares State Secrets. This, of course, when they are requested by FOIA requests and other similar requests. These judges could review the entire documents and review the redactions made by the Gov. in these cases. These judges could retain some independence from both the executive and legislative branches of government.

I suspect experienced Federal judges could do very good work in these kind of situations. I certainly have a lot more faith in the reasoned judgements of an experienced judiciary than that of some anonymous partisan Gov. functionary. The existing system has clearly been abused historically, as someone mentioned, to protect bad officials and bad decision making. It has also been used to erode the freedoms promised by the US Constitution.

This business regarding the Patriot Act is a perfect example. Transparency regarding the protocols for decision making seems essential to preserve freedom and democracy, to me. Not exposing them simply allows more arbitrary and secret decision making that may not actually be in the best interests of citizens.

Our children, and our children's children, are going to have a good amount of justification in blaming us for the many ills that will no doubt eventually surface from this period. We hold the power of the vote, and there are no excuses to let this sort of cloak and dagger rubbish run unchecked.

Voting has power? I was pretty sure it was a whack a mole game... we went into the booth and randomly punch bubbles that popped out at us, then we get to see the pre-determined results later that evening.

Our children, and our children's children, are going to have a good amount of justification in blaming us for the many ills that will no doubt eventually surface from this period. We hold the power of the vote, and there are no excuses to let this sort of cloak and dagger rubbish run unchecked.

The power of the vote is meaningless without meaningful choices to vote for. On most of the issues I follow, both the Democrats and the Republicans are equally horrible (though often for different reasons). So, I have plenty of people to vote against, but who should I vote for?

That's not to say 'there's nothing to be done', but saying 'vote them out' doesn't help at this point: we, as the citizens of this country, need a better strategy than just replacing one party with a near-mirror-copy.

They could fix a lot of things if they would just merge both parties and create the Capitalists party...

It is possible for 3 party states to exist like in Canada where we have 3 major parities, NDP, Liberals and Conservatives. You just need a populace that is split into 3 relatively equal blocs or lots of swingers

Parliamentary systems are far more amenable to having three or more political parties than the American system. Since the chief executive in such a system (usually the Prime Minister) comes from the legislative body, there is a built-in need for cooperation across party lines to have functioning leadership. Too much gridlock, and ruling coalition can easily collapse.

Although many Americans are fed up with the current gridlock, the structure of our government and the electoral process (not to mention media influence) isn't likely to change unless things get far worse. There are (unfortunately) too many vested interests that benefit greatly from the current setup.

It is also a result of the voting system that we use. As it stands, the guy with the most votes wins. Essentially this will always devolve into a 2 party system. There are some really good explanations out there, but it basically boils down to...

You start with 3 parties (it works the same if u use more). Of those 3 parties:

-You really love the long shot in party A. They're a perfect fit for your values, but unlikely to win.-You don't mind the guy in party B, he's moderately close to A but you don't agree with him completely. He has a good chance of winning.-You hate party C. He has a good chance of winning.

Voting for party A can/will have the effect of making party C more likely to win. People say it's "throwing away your vote" and the like to vote for a long-shot/3rd-party candidate. As a result, the populus will vote for the most likely to win candidate, that they hate the least. It will always result in 2 parties as the 3rd party candidate just makes the guy you hate the most more likely to win (or put another way, he steals votes from the guy closest to him).

Also, the two parties we do have are so entrenched that they're basically impossible to remove and replace with a 3rd party.

And here's a wonderful video by CGPGrey called "The Problems with First Past the Post Voting Explained" which illustrates the above explanation nicely.

Our children, and our children's children, are going to have a good amount of justification in blaming us for the many ills that will no doubt eventually surface from this period. We hold the power of the vote, and there are no excuses to let this sort of cloak and dagger rubbish run unchecked.

By that time there won't be any vote. All this police state, national security baloney will only get worse and worse! I mean the corporations and the elite 1% OWN the country now. They own the votes or the election process! The only people getting elected are the numb nuts with wealth, supported by their lunatic red/blue political machine with its own billions to swing around. They'll keep electing wealthy puppets...

By that time there won't be any vote. All this police state, national security baloney will only get worse and worse! I mean the corporations and the elite 1% OWN the country now. They own the votes or the election process! The only people getting elected are the numb nuts with wealth, supported by their lunatic red/blue political machine with its own billions to swing around. They'll keep electing wealthy puppets...

Except that:

1) The richer candidate doesn't always get elected.

2) Ultimately, it is the people who have the vote.

Really, if there's a problem with who we elect, it would be the fault of the people - i.e. you.

By that time there won't be any vote. All this police state, national security baloney will only get worse and worse! I mean the corporations and the elite 1% OWN the country now. They own the votes or the election process! The only people getting elected are the numb nuts with wealth, supported by their lunatic red/blue political machine with its own billions to swing around. They'll keep electing wealthy puppets...

Except that:

1) The richer candidate doesn't always get elected.

2) Ultimately, it is the people who have the vote.

Really, if there's a problem with who we elect, it would be the fault of the people - i.e. you.

Richer doesn't have to mean that they themselves front all the money, richer entails the sponsors that lend their money to the campaign (which tends to look pretty even on both sides), but in this case it's usually the candidate with the most campaign money wins the election.

Also per #2, with allegations of voter fraud, people being turned away at voting locations and the many unknowns of electronic voting machines, when can you really say that you are certain your vote even counted?

Back on-topic... How on earth does hiding the number of pages in a particular document improve the security of the country?

Now, THIS is an interesting question.

The answer is actually that it can, and the reason is that the volume of a document can reveal how much (or little) is in the document. If, for instance, you ask for documents regarding, say, the wiretapping of people from Libya, then the length of the document could reveal how much wiretapping/attention to said wiretapping has been going on. If the document for people from Iran is significantly different in length to, say, people from Pakistan, that would potentially give away information.

Not that in this instance it is being done for anything other than CYA, but the volume of information can indeed give away information about the contents of said information.

No, it can't. The volume of information says jack shit about the content of said information. The volume of information says something about the quantity of information. You can use that to infer importance of one target over another, but it still doesn't imply jack about contents thereof.

The funny thing about people complaining that the President should declassify these documents is that he probably doesn't have the clearance to view these documents himself. He, of course, could request they be declassified and it would then go down the chain of command. But, if he wanted to actually view the documents he would have to go through a lot of paperwork to do so. People make the assumption that the President has carte blanche authority to do and see what he wants, but the truth is he is subject to the same rules as everyone else. There is no super top secret clearance that lets you in everywhere, there is just top secret (granted there are specialized sub classifications for things like nuclear weapons) and each top secret clearance is compartmentalized to its scope. So, if you need to look at something outside your scope, you have to apply for another top secret clearance, even if the department is next door. In this case it is doubtful the DoJ lawyers have clearance to view these documents and would have to apply for clearance if the Judge forced them to obtain the documents. The Judge herself would have to apply for clearance as would the EFF.

I am not saying that what is going on is right, I am just pointing out that this isn't just the whim of one man or administration. Most of this is done completely outside the knowledge and authority of higher levels of government. All higher ups get is a brief that may contain a line saying, "...investigating the storage of all gps cell phone data" and not mention how far that investigation has gone.

Our children, and our children's children, are going to have a good amount of justification in blaming us for the many ills that will no doubt eventually surface from this period. We hold the power of the vote, and there are no excuses to let this sort of cloak and dagger rubbish run unchecked.

Voting isn't even all that essential to the process nor is it our greatest power. Our greatest power as the people is the jury and our ability to nullify. When you serve as a juror it isn't just your responsibility to decide whether the defendant is guilty or innocent, you also have the right to not agree with the law they violated. Nullification is our power to strike down laws in the courts, even if the state prosecution has you believing (and regardless if they are right or wrong) a defendant is guilty you can still move to nullify because you don't agree with the law he's being charged with breaking.

Knowing about this is also the quickest way to get sent home from Jury duty. Judges and lawyers really hate it when people know this...

By that time there won't be any vote. All this police state, national security baloney will only get worse and worse! I mean the corporations and the elite 1% OWN the country now. They own the votes or the election process! The only people getting elected are the numb nuts with wealth, supported by their lunatic red/blue political machine with its own billions to swing around. They'll keep electing wealthy puppets...

Except that:

1) The richer candidate doesn't always get elected.

2) Ultimately, it is the people who have the vote.

Really, if there's a problem with who we elect, it would be the fault of the people - i.e. you.

Richer doesn't have to mean that they themselves front all the money, richer entails the sponsors that lend their money to the campaign (which tends to look pretty even on both sides), but in this case it's usually the candidate with the most campaign money wins the election.

Also per #2, with allegations of voter fraud, people being turned away at voting locations and the many unknowns of electronic voting machines, when can you really say that you are certain your vote even counted?

I'm from Illinois and I'm absolutely 100% positive that my vote didn't count. Between the district gerrymandering and the union block buyoffs the vote was predetermined well in advance.

The funny thing about people complaining that the President should declassify these documents is that he probably doesn't have the clearance to view these documents himself. He, of course, could request they be declassified and it would then go down the chain of command. But, if he wanted to actually view the documents he would have to go through a lot of paperwork to do so. People make the assumption that the President has carte blanche authority to do and see what he wants, but the truth is he is subject to the same rules as everyone else. There is no super top secret clearance that lets you in everywhere, there is just top secret (granted there are specialized sub classifications for things like nuclear weapons) and each top secret clearance is compartmentalized to its scope. So, if you need to look at something outside your scope, you have to apply for another top secret clearance, even if the department is next door. In this case it is doubtful the DoJ lawyers have clearance to view these documents and would have to apply for clearance if the Judge forced them to obtain the documents. The Judge herself would have to apply for clearance as would the EFF.

I am not saying that what is going on is right, I am just pointing out that this isn't just the whim of one man or administration. Most of this is done completely outside the knowledge and authority of higher levels of government. All higher ups get is a brief that may contain a line saying, "...investigating the storage of all gps cell phone data" and not mention how far that investigation has gone.

I'd be hardpressed to believe that the US President has to go through another background check and a metric fuckton of paperwork each time he wants to see a different TS document.

"Where have you lived for the past 5 years?""The damn White House, John, you know that."

Nullification is really, really bad and is a spit in the eye of the law. Its a major flaw of the jury system, and a violation of the 14th Amendment.

The reason it is possible is because it is impossible to ban it effectively.

Bad people love jury nullification.

Bad people like Thomas Jefferson, who advocated it in protest of the Alien Sedition Act.

Bad people like the abolitionists before the Civil War who used it in protest of fugitive slave laws.

Bad people like the States who refused to implement the government's Real ID program. (Not technically jury nullification, but definitely in the spirit.) Oh, don't forget legalization of marijuana, which has states opening defying the Federal government's very clear rules on the subject.

Bad people like the few civil liberty advocates that have survived into the age of Obama that are trying everything to stop the advance of a State that asserts the right of the President to assassinate a US citizen anywhere in the world without a trial purely on his say-so and won't even release the legal documents that "prove" its constitutionality.

Nullification is the citizen's most effective response to a tyrannical government. We can't rise up against the government violently. Partially because we don't have nearly as many guns as they do, but mostly because we're not murderers and thugs like they are. Let me repeat that. We are not murderers and thugs; they are. Stop thinking that the average citizen is out to murder you with his 30 round magazine and his big scary "assault rifle" and that you need the benevolence of the State to protect you from the bad scary man around the corner (who will also rape your children too!). They started wars of aggression against foreign countries. They have killed wedding parties and children getting firewood with drones halfway across the world. They have murdered a 16 year old only because they didn't like his father. They sexually assault 6 year olds in wheelchairs. They buy targets of pregnant women and elderly men on walker for target practice. They have their forces trained to gun down women and children; that average citizen with his scary gun couldn't kill even a full uniformed solider without feeling guilt. (And good for the average citizen, I might add.) They have a "Homeland Security" department that bought 2 BILLION rounds of ammo. And honestly? We can't do anything about this. But we can slow down their advances at home. We can make it clear that we will not put up with their bullshit, that the state government and the jury system are not subsidiaries for a centralized state to carry out their laws more efficiently.

And we can definitely stop worshiping their authority. If this makes me a radical, then so be it.

Nope, the State Secrets Privilege mentioned the article is far worse than FISA, Patriot and NDAA combined.

The SSP is basically a get-out-of-jail-free card, where if they get caught with their hand in the cookie jar,they can just let out a big mafioso "FORGEDDA BOUD IIIIIT!" and continue on with their shenanigans.

With the SSP invoked, any and all investigation into any and all government misconduct is prohibited,including investigation into whether or not the claim is legitimate, the judge doesn't even get to know.

-snip- Partially because we don't have nearly as many guns as they do, but mostly because we're not murderers and thugs like they are. Let me repeat that. We are not murderers and thugs; they are. Stop thinking that the average citizen is out to murder you with his 30 round magazine and his big scary "assault rifle" and that you need the benevolence of the State to protect you from the bad scary man around the corner (who will also rape your children too!). -snip

The reflection there is there there are an estimated 270M firearms in civilian hands, and less than 4M in combined Mil and Police hands. I'm unclear as to if this includes Feeb/Spook/DHS numbers, but even if they didn't I can't see them having enough of an impact to really make a dent in that number.

Granted, the force multiplier effect on .gov (used to encompass all facets of government) other hardware evens up those odds quite a bit, but the numbers are still potentially on the side of the civilian.

The second statement by and large I agree with: There are a very small number of thugs within the populace, but that number is trivial compared to the overall.

The third statement I wholeheartedly agree with: Most people who have Evil Black Rifles (EBRs) fall firmly into the majority of "not thugs".

Our children, and our children's children, are going to have a good amount of justification in blaming us for the many ills that will no doubt eventually surface from this period. We hold the power of the vote, and there are no excuses to let this sort of cloak and dagger rubbish run unchecked.

Welcome to the new American Empire. The popular vote is largely meaningless now. People can't vote the Supreme Court out. Congress listens to money, not people. And the Executive branch since Bush II doesn't have to listen to other branches anyway. All they need to do is claim executive privilege or state secrets and its the end of the matter.

The system of checks and balances was largely broken by the Bush II administration. We now have unilateral executive power, with only lip service paid to congress and the courts.

If this was in Italian, it might be dialog from a 1970s Lina Wertmuller movie. As it is, it's a bona fide nightmare. Secrets that are so secret that we have to keep their very existence secret? F that noise, that ain't how it's done in the USA. Drag it all screaming into the sunlight, the best disinfectant.

My best guess for a "secret": 9/11 was modeled on "operation northwoods" from 1963 and the whole event was scripted and produced in order to roll out obscenities like the PATRIOT Act and the invasion (why?) of Iraq to steal their oil. The government knows that the government knew, so war crimes such as "Gitmo" are REALLY obscene -- torturing people we know didn't know jack sh1t about 9/11, but we went through the motions to "protect our freedom"???? This is Kafka territory and it's not right.

"That list itself is classified" -- to which I'd have replied, "Knock off the bullshit, Steve. Produce the list NOW."

So called "democratic" governments around the world are behaving in a manner antithetical to democracy. Political parties are doing the same, by rigging electoral rules so that only major parties have a chance to win elections. Then of course we have gerrymandering, and so much money flowing into political parties from companies that expect to buy loyalty for their buck.

"Democracy" as practised is unworthy of the name.

I would argue that we no longer function as a Democratic Republic. I'd say we're closer now to an Ogliarchy based off the two political parties and a Plutocracy based off the "corporations as individuals" and the lobbying state of our nation.

I think we need to just give up the facade of being a democracy or even a republic.

Richer doesn't have to mean that they themselves front all the money, richer entails the sponsors that lend their money to the campaign (which tends to look pretty even on both sides), but in this case it's usually the candidate with the most campaign money wins the election.

Also per #2, with allegations of voter fraud, people being turned away at voting locations and the many unknowns of electronic voting machines, when can you really say that you are certain your vote even counted?

In 2012, the Republicans had more money than the Democrats and outspent the Democrats, particularly in specific key races, and lost.

As has been pointed out, the actual thing which correlates with victory is broad interest in contribution. In other words, having a few billionare backers is not as valuable as having a large number of small donors, not because the money sways people but because having a large number of small donors indicates that a lot of people care about you winning. In other words, very likely the causation is backwards - it is not that money makes a campaign successful, but that being successful garners additional money. There very likely is some benefit from having money, but I (rather strongly) suspect that beyond a certain level of spending (which we are now past) money doesn't actually help because you've already reached everyone, and most people make up their minds. More important is how excited your base is to turn out and vote for you and encourage others to do the same.

People always whine about voter fraud, particularly the losers, but very seldom do such claims pan out in the US. Look at 2012 - the Republicans went crazy for a while "OMG teh fraud!!!!!" but there was never any evidence of fraud at all. In 2000, the "fraud" was a lack of a recount in Florida and the Supreme Court decision blocking it. We've never found any evidence of deliberate fraud in the voting machines, and while I don't LIKE them, the fact that they -can- be used for fraud easily doesn't necessarily mean that they -have- been used for fraud in the US.

The most undemocratic thing realy is gerrymandering, which is for the moment legal in most states, and is the only reason that the Republicans have control of the House.

Cartigan wrote:

No, it can't. The volume of information says jack shit about the content of said information. The volume of information says something about the quantity of information. You can use that to infer importance of one target over another, but it still doesn't imply jack about contents thereof.

See, this is why you'll never have a job at the CIA.

EchtoGammut wrote:

The funny thing about people complaining that the President should declassify these documents is that he probably doesn't have the clearance to view these documents himself. He, of course, could request they be declassified and it would then go down the chain of command. But, if he wanted to actually view the documents he would have to go through a lot of paperwork to do so. People make the assumption that the President has carte blanche authority to do and see what he wants, but the truth is he is subject to the same rules as everyone else. There is no super top secret clearance that lets you in everywhere, there is just top secret (granted there are specialized sub classifications for things like nuclear weapons) and each top secret clearance is compartmentalized to its scope. So, if you need to look at something outside your scope, you have to apply for another top secret clearance, even if the department is next door. In this case it is doubtful the DoJ lawyers have clearance to view these documents and would have to apply for clearance if the Judge forced them to obtain the documents. The Judge herself would have to apply for clearance as would the EFF.

Firstly, the need to fight a legal court case over them is sufficient to establish a "need to know" basis, as they need to know if the documents are actually a national security matter or merely CYA.

Secondly, the president not only has the highest degree of access to said material, but has a need to know for everything due to his position - all classified material falls under his domain. He has a need to know whether said material has been appropriately classified, he has a need to know whether people are breaking the law, he has a need to know what his subordinates are doing, ect. There isn't any classified material that the president doesn't have a need to know.

slopoke wrote:

I'm from Illinois and I'm absolutely 100% positive that my vote didn't count. Between the district gerrymandering and the union block buyoffs the vote was predetermined well in advance.

Your vote was counted, and there are many, many issues - state level and below - which your vote very likely counts a great deal on, even if on the national level your vote was overwhelmed by others.

Moreover, it is worth noting that, in fact, this is a fallacy in thinking anyway - all major votes have hundreds of thousands of ballots cast, meaning that ultimately those votes do count as they add up, and the fact that a sizable portion of the population votes another way than the majority does also counts because people do notice that.

thenino85 wrote:

Bad people like Thomas Jefferson, who advocated it in protest of the Alien Sedition Act.

The alien sedition act was illegal itself and this was prior to the 14th Amendment.

Quote:

Bad people like the abolitionists before the Civil War who used it in protest of fugitive slave laws.

Again, prior to the 14th Amendment.

Quote:

Bad people like the States who refused to implement the government's Real ID program. (Not technically jury nullification, but definitely in the spirit.) Oh, don't forget legalization of marijuana, which has states opening defying the Federal government's very clear rules on the subject.

Firstly, this is not jury nullification - jury nullification is nullification by a jury, NOT by statute.

Secondly, the federal government can arrest people involved in the production of "medical marijuana".

Thirdly, a lot of the opposition to the Real ID Act comes from crazy people. Yes, there are aspects I don't like, but I think that the core of the law is actually a good idea. The federal standards for PIDs, drivers licenses, and other such documents are a good thing.

Quote:

Bad people like the few civil liberty advocates that have survived into the age of Obama that are trying everything to stop the advance of a State that asserts the right of the President to assassinate a US citizen anywhere in the world without a trial purely on his say-so and won't even release the legal documents that "prove" its constitutionality.

Wow, you REALLY have no understanding of reality, do you?

How on Earth is jury nullification going to have any impact on anything that doesn't involve a jury?

Why are you babbling about nonsense? Is it because you don't understand anything? Because that's what it sounds like!

Maybe you should smoke a bit less of that "medical" marijuana.

Anyway, regarding the Constitutionality of drone strikes on Americans in foreign countries aiding and assisting terrorists, they are, at that point, enemy combatants as much as Confederate soldiers were during the American Civil War. We didn't hold trials for every soldier on the opposing side before we had battles, despite the fact that the US never recognized the Confederacy as a foreign state. If you are engaged in military action against the US the US military can attack you. Its really just that simple. Its the same reason that the US military can attack people from other countries.

thenino85 wrote:

Retarded rant about how jury nullification totally is justified despite not addressing a single issue that you are complaining about.

Look dude, I understand that you hate America, but you're ranting crazy here.

Here's reality: jury nullification is bad and a violation of the 14th Amendment, which provides that ALL Americans are equal before the law. Jury nullification spits in the face of the Constitution, and anyone who believes that all people should not be held equal before the law is against the most important legal principle there is. You cannot claim to be against drone strikes because they don't get a trial and be for jury nullification, because guess what? You just said that ignoring the law is fine. That is a hypocritical standpoint to take.

Period.

The end.

YOU are a murderer and a thug, because YOU are for allowing them to walk free because you approve of their actions. That is what being for jury nullifaction means. That is reality.

NONE of the things you whined about - not a single thing - has ANYTHING to do with jury nullification. Jury nullification, therefore, cannot possibly be the correct response to this because it does nothing to address any issue you brought up.

Ergo, your argument fails.

Jury nullification is wrong.

Cheesewhiz wrote:

Welcome to the new American Empire. The popular vote is largely meaningless now. People can't vote the Supreme Court out. Congress listens to money, not people. And the Executive branch since Bush II doesn't have to listen to other branches anyway. All they need to do is claim executive privilege or state secrets and its the end of the matter.

1) The Supreme Court should not be popularly elected, and it is a good thing that it is not. People who argue against this are always morons. The Supreme Court's insulation from the populace at large, and its ability to make decisions and not be voted out for them, is important in its duty in upholding the Constitution.

2) Congress listens to people and you're an idiot if you think otherwise. You can write to your Congressman and someone in the office will read it. If a lot of people write to their Congressman, they DO care. In fact, if anything, the problem is that they listen too much to crazy people, who tend to write in more often, as well as to other people who care to communicate with them often, like special interest groups. Bribes happen, but most of it has nothing to do with bribes.

3) The executive branch could be brought to heel if the other branches decided to care.

4) The executive branch's ability to do a great number of things is sharply limited. They cannot pass laws nor budgets, which is a pretty strong control on them. The biggest problem is a lack of transparency.

x76 wrote:

My best guess for a "secret": 9/11 was modeled on "operation northwoods" from 1963 and the whole event was scripted and produced in order to roll out obscenities like the PATRIOT Act and the invasion (why?) of Iraq to steal their oil. The government knows that the government knew, so war crimes such as "Gitmo" are REALLY obscene -- torturing people we know didn't know jack sh1t about 9/11, but we went through the motions to "protect our freedom"???? This is Kafka territory and it's not right.

The funny thing about people complaining that the President should declassify these documents is that he probably doesn't have the clearance to view these documents himself. He, of course, could request they be declassified and it would then go down the chain of command. But, if he wanted to actually view the documents he would have to go through a lot of paperwork to do so. People make the assumption that the President has carte blanche authority to do and see what he wants, but the truth is he is subject to the same rules as everyone else. There is no super top secret clearance that lets you in everywhere, there is just top secret (granted there are specialized sub classifications for things like nuclear weapons) and each top secret clearance is compartmentalized to its scope. So, if you need to look at something outside your scope, you have to apply for another top secret clearance, even if the department is next door. In this case it is doubtful the DoJ lawyers have clearance to view these documents and would have to apply for clearance if the Judge forced them to obtain the documents. The Judge herself would have to apply for clearance as would the EFF.

I am not saying that what is going on is right, I am just pointing out that this isn't just the whim of one man or administration. Most of this is done completely outside the knowledge and authority of higher levels of government. All higher ups get is a brief that may contain a line saying, "...investigating the storage of all gps cell phone data" and not mention how far that investigation has gone.

The legal ability to classify material and grant security clearances rests solely under the Executive branch. The President runs the Executive branch. Therefore, he is in charge of all classified material and has access to all of it (if he had the time/desire).

That's not to say that he is involved in all of it. He's obviously not, and no single person could keep up with all of it. Also, all Presidents generally avoid becoming involved in classification issues/clearing documents for release. It is (essentially) always deferred to the department/agency that created the material.

It is also a result of the voting system that we use. As it stands, the guy with the most votes wins. Essentially this will always devolve into a 2 party system. There are some really good explanations out there, but it basically boils down to...

No, it can't. The volume of information says jack shit about the content of said information. The volume of information says something about the quantity of information. You can use that to infer importance of one target over another, but it still doesn't imply jack about contents thereof.

See, this is why you'll never have a job at the CIA.

I'd like to see the CIA infer the plot of the Old Man and the Sea given the page count. Especially since I've never read it, I'd like to know how it goes.And of course, it's simple as far as groups that only go by acronyms go "Did we produce it? NO ONE PRODUCED ANYTHING. CLASSIFIED"